It is difficult to assess the evidence of the four witnesses who gave evidence against Chu Leung from the record of the case particularly when their evidence was not subjected to a proper cross- examination, and for anyone with experience in advocacy there was considerable opportunity for cross- examination. If the witnesses had been properly cross- examined then a satisfactory explanation might have been forthcoming as to the discrepancies and contra- dictions or alternatively evidence might have been demonstrated tokfalse.
L
2. I have the following comments to make on the findings of the Assistant Commissioner who held the enquiry
(i)
There was a serious discrepancy between the evidence of Hon and Chan as to the alleged meeting with Chu Leung at the Singchow Restaurant towards the end of September 1961 Hon gave evidence that he, Chan and Chu Leung and Mr. X were all present at the meeting to discuss the freeing of "Mr. I" from the undesirable attentions of the Special Branch. Chan, on the other hand, while agreeing he discussed the question of "Mr. I" with Hon, denied that there had been any meeting with Chu Leung in connection with this matter. This was a serious contradiction between two witnesses for the prosecution but the Assistant Commissioner merely states that there was some discrepancy between the evidence of these two witnesses, while evidence as to exact dates is hazy owing to the lapse of time. Then in the next para- graph of his findings he goes on to say that he accepts the evidence of Hon and Chan (and also two other witnesses) as regards their meetings with Chu Leung as true. I can only surmise that the Acting Commissioner, when considering the findings, had forgotten the nature of the contradictions between the evidence of Hon and Chan.
(ii) It would appear from paragraph 4 of the
Assistant Commissioner's findings that one of the reasons why he accepted the evidence of the
fovy K.M.T. Agents was that there was no reason why they should concoct a story against Chu Leung, but on the contrary, it appears that K.M.T. Intelligence Service had everything to gain by maintaining him in the Special Branch. This is a fallacious argu- ment and has no foundation unless Chu Leung is guilty of the offences charged, but on the other hand, if the K.M.T. Intelligence Service had a spy in the Special Branch it would be in their interests to make allegat- ions against an innocent member of the
Special Branch, in order to cover up their spy.
(iii) The Assistant Commissioner states in para-
graph 8 of his findings that it would be dangerous to accept the evidence of Hon without a reasonable degree of corroboration, and with this I entirely agree. What evidence was there to corroborate the evid- ence of Hon? In fact only the evidence of another K.M.T. Agent, whose eyidence,.in the opinion of the Assistant Commissioner,would
/be
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.